Fractal Softworks Forum

Starsector => Suggestions => Topic started by: TaLaR on September 09, 2018, 01:53:31 AM

Title: Carrier balance stuff
Post by: TaLaR on September 09, 2018, 01:53:31 AM
1) Helmsmanship 3 is way too overpowered for carriers. Optimized  skill-less Astral (with UI) is already a tough enough opponent.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I can 1v1 (skill-less) it either with all-killing frigate trio (Hyperion, Afflictor, Shade) or other Capitals (only same Astral or Legion can do so reasonably fast, for non-carriers it's slow and dangerous process of cornering the Astral). And that's without Helmsmanship 3. With it, Astral is pretty much untouchable to all but super frigates and other capital carriers.

2) Flash bombers, or more specifically how other AI fighters fail to handle their mines. PD ones just suicide rush into the minefield,  non-pd fail to make sufficient course corrections to avoid the mines (when engaging/disengaging they just fly straight to target, even if that means going through minefield. When regrouping they also fail to make decent enough attempt to avoid the minefield).
Since you can't correct this suicidal behavior by manually leading your fighters by waypoints or forcing them to stay docked, the only possible counter (as a carrier) is to  attack with more Flash bombers yourself.

3) Bomber control: you'd think you could at least defend against enemy's Flash bombers with few ones of your own. But there is another problem - they can effectively attack only larger/slower ships.
If 2 carriers target each other, one with more Flashes wins, but as the smaller one, you can't defensively target incoming fighter wave (Flash bombers won't drop mines against maneuverable targets).
Would be nice if (any) bombers interpreted command to attack a fighter as 'don't try to precisely hit single fighter in question, just carpet bomb general area (require much less precision to release bombs)'.
Separate area bombardment command would be nice for defensive usage too (ignored by fighters except free-fall bombers) - like pick starting point and direction.
Title: Re: Carrier balance stuff
Post by: Embolism on September 09, 2018, 06:10:20 AM
For 2., fighters in general need to be a lot less keen to fly straight into incoming ordnance. Approaching fighters should try to weave away from incoming fire, not facetank them (especially if they don't have shields); and too often do I see Talons fly straight into Pilums rather than flying around then and shooting them down...
Title: Re: Carrier balance stuff
Post by: Megas on September 09, 2018, 06:44:45 AM
Quote
1) Helmsmanship 3 is way too overpowered for carriers. Optimized  skill-less Astral (with UI) is already a tough enough opponent.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I can 1v1 (skill-less) it either with all-killing frigate trio (Hyperion, Afflictor, Shade) or other Capitals (only same Astral or Legion can do so reasonably fast, for non-carriers it's slow and dangerous process of cornering the Astral). And that's without Helmsmanship 3. With it, Astral is pretty much untouchable to all but super frigates and other capital carriers.
Helmsmanship 3 is unbalanced.  Overpowered for carriers, useless for other warships that matter (even with 5%).  Arriving to the front-line faster with shields up before losing the speed bonus is not worth a skill point.

Combat 3 is required for this alone if you want to dabble with carriers or even warships with Converted Hangar.  With Technology and Leadership required for all optimized characters, this is another tax.  This is why empty aptitudes do not work.  All optimized characters will spend at least nine points into them.

That said, even with Helmsmanship 3, it is not enough for carriers to surpass Aurora and Paragon.  Optimized Paragon outperforms optimized Astral, although they require different skills.  Aurora might be able to outperform Heron and Mora, or at least kill as many ships in less time (because Aurora might need Safety Override or missiles to do it, which is undesirable when endurance is the goal).

As for enemy Astral duel, capitals might need to resort to a peak performance war if Astral cannot be cornered.  At least Astral is one of those with less time.  If the defender can destroy incoming fighters, it will wear down Astral, and wings that have been completely wiped out will tick down peak performance even if no enemies are present, until one fighter in the wing is rebuilt.

P.S.  Helmsmanship 3 is a reason why (unarmed) Drover is head-and-shoulders above other destroyers.  It has just enough speed to outrun everything, and it can maintain replacement rate with its system.  360 shields combined with endless kiting is all the defense it needs.  Heron is up there near Aurora with this too.

I remember one time when I was ready to upgrade my flagship to a cruiser around midgame, I had a choice between Eagle and Heron.  I almost picked Eagle by reflex, but thought... if I have trouble with cowardly AI with Wolf and Medusa flagship, how would I catch the enemy with an even slower ship?  Heron, on the other hand, has fighters that can chase down cowards.  My personal firepower may be weak, but the fighters should deal with that.  After picking Heron, it soon became apparent I made the right choice.  Heron was able to deal with a wide variety of enemies.

As for Talons, I do not mind them dying.  They need to die to unleash two Swarmers every time they attack.  (Talon launches two Swarmers, it dies, replacement arrives a moment later possibly without taxing replacement rate, dumps two more.)  Talons can replace so fast that them dying is a benefit.  For other fighters, dying hurts.
Title: Re: Carrier balance stuff
Post by: TaLaR on September 09, 2018, 10:22:16 AM
Helmsmanship 3 is unbalanced.  Overpowered for carriers, useless for other warships that matter (even with 5%).  Arriving to the front-line faster with shields up before losing the speed bonus is not worth a skill point.

Yeah, it's only useful for carriers and beam-boats with weapon flux below dissipation.

As for Talons, I do not mind them dying.  They need to die to unleash two Swarmers every time they attack.  (Talon launches two Swarmers, it dies, replacement arrives a moment later possibly without taxing replacement rate, dumps two more.)  Talons can replace so fast that them dying is a benefit.  For other fighters, dying hurts.

Even with Talons, it's a problem if almost all your fighters get deleted instantly and keep suiciding into mines as soon as rebuilt. Which is what Flash bombers cause.
Title: Re: Carrier balance stuff
Post by: Megas on September 09, 2018, 11:01:20 AM
I forgot to mention that Unstable Injector compounds the Helmsmanship 3/speed problem.  The range penalty from Unstable Injector is usually not worth it for warships, but dedicated carriers that rely solely on fighters for damage do not care because their fighters are not affected.  Astral with both Helmsmanship 3 and Unstable Injector does not have much trouble kiting from other capitals.  (As for smaller ships attacking Astral, Recall Device and they die from fighter swarm in their face.)  Dedicated carriers that eschew conventional weapons and exploit both Helmsmanship 3 and Unstable Injector may be faster than their base speeds may imply.  This is how Drover can become fast enough to kite from everything that can threaten it.
Title: Re: Carrier balance stuff
Post by: TaLaR on September 09, 2018, 11:20:58 AM
UI is free (aside from OP) for pure carriers, sure. And applying range penalty to fighters leash wouldn't matter much - 75% of it is still enough to not worry. How about UI reducing replenishment rate as well as weapon range?
Title: Re: Carrier balance stuff
Post by: Alex on September 09, 2018, 11:24:03 AM
From the current (as yet unpublished) batch of patch notes:

Ordering fighters to engage builds flux up to slightly above 5%
Unstable Injector: now also increases fighter replacement time by 25%
Title: Re: Carrier balance stuff
Post by: Megas on September 09, 2018, 11:36:56 AM
UI is free (aside from OP) for pure carriers, sure. And applying range penalty to fighters leash wouldn't matter much - 75% of it is still enough to not worry. How about UI reducing replenishment rate as well as weapon range?
True.  The only way a range penalty would work is if it was so much that it turned all fighters into support fighters like Xyphos, which defeats the point of interceptors and bombers.

UI might cost OP, but if the carrier does not need ITU due to no weapons, then it merely swaps one mod for another.

<looks at Alex's post above...>

Maybe Unstable Injector can speed up replacement rate drain when fighter wings are down too?  Part of what makes Expanded Deck Crew great is not only fighter replacement is faster, but also that replacement rate drain from lost wings is slower.  Expanded Deck Crew is very powerful on any carrier that can take it, not only on dedicated carriers but also battlestars (namely Legion) that fight primarily as warships.
Title: Re: Carrier balance stuff
Post by: Alex on September 09, 2018, 11:42:26 AM
Part of the reason for rate being so important right now is that it's... bugged. That is, it applies twice - a 50% replacement rate means .5 * .5 = an actual 25% replacement rate. So, anything that directly helps with it has an outsized influence.

I *think* it'll be less important with that fixed, since a carrier is much less crippled even when it's down to 30%. I mean, 30% is still bad, but it's not "completely useless as a carrier" as it is when it's actually 9%.
Title: Re: Carrier balance stuff
Post by: Megas on September 09, 2018, 11:51:46 AM
That might make Expanded Deck Crew a bit less critical.  I might not have recognized that square penalty bug, but did notice the effects enough that I thought part of building effective carriers was never allowing replacement rate drop much below 80% in the first place.

I am not sure.  I suspect the new UI penalty may not be enough to carriers.  If using UI means the difference between kiting or getting caught and killed, especially since Helmsmanship 3 will not be an option anymore, then UI may still be must-have, but that may be okay since such carriers do not need ITU in the first place.

Helmsmanship 3 not working for carriers anymore will probably stop the worst of carriers' kiting while everything else dies from their fighters.
Title: Re: Carrier balance stuff
Post by: Alex on September 09, 2018, 12:05:20 PM
I think it might depend on what you want the carrier for. If you're trying to solo-kite things with it, then UI will be required almost no matter what, right? But if you're using it to support other ships, those points might be better spent elsewhere.
Title: Re: Carrier balance stuff
Post by: Megas on September 09, 2018, 12:15:59 PM
Maybe, but given how AI loves to cower, UI may be useful anyway (provided the AI carrier does not lose its mind and try to melee ships with flak).  It is not like a dedicated carrier can stand up to a warship.  But given how OP hungry carriers are, I suppose UI can be dropped if carriers are not soloing things.

The worst problem I have with some carriers built to solo enemies, like Heron with only dual flak mounted and high-end fighters, before being handed off to the AI is it thinks it can approach the enemy as close as possible before blasting it with dual flak, despite having dual flak mounted only for missile defense.  I suppose I could put a Timid officer to stop that, which is not ideal.  Stuff like completely unarmed Drover is not a problem, they run and hang back as appropriate.
Title: Re: Carrier balance stuff
Post by: Alex on September 09, 2018, 12:23:01 PM
Let me make a note about that; will see if that's an easy-ish fix.
Title: Re: Carrier balance stuff
Post by: Megas on September 09, 2018, 12:32:00 PM
@ Alex: The problem with ship armed with only PD attempting to fight with PD weapons happened either without an officer or one with Steady personality, cannot remember which, but it should not matter since default personality should be Steady.

* * *

Without Helmsmanship 3 allowing zero-flux speed while fighters are engaged, Converted Hangar appears less useful.  By that, I mean instead of being a very powerful top pick (almost to the point of no-brainer) for any cruiser or capital, it can vary in usefulness depending what you need.  If you do not want to constantly toggle fighter status to squeeze out max speed (or cannot trust the AI to do it for their ships), warship may be better without it.  But, it is still useful for special uses like, say... Dominator getting EMP weaponry via Claw fighters.
Title: Re: Carrier balance stuff
Post by: Schwartz on September 09, 2018, 01:02:02 PM
Hell, instead of adding a bunch of other strange maluses to UI, it could just be made that drive boosters can't be used on ships with hangars, including converted hangars. Something about high and unpredictable speeds crashing launching/docking fighters right into the bulkheads. Elegant solution to curb kiting with the ships that are clearly too good at it.

Replacement rate extremes being fixed should do some good, especially because the positive extreme turns PD into an arcade shooter against endless waves. Ridiculous as far as logistics are concerned, not to mention skilled pilots and loss of lives.

More granular controls for your fighters/bombers and giving the NPCs the same kind of control for their wings is #1. This is what's holding the new fighter mechanic back right now as a shadow of its former self. The comparison of fighters being endless missile supplies (but better) is apt, and this not a good place to be. The only way I can see this improved is to regress to something the old version had. Give fighters some of their AI and autonomy back within the new framework. Make them feel different again.
Title: Re: Carrier balance stuff
Post by: Retry on September 09, 2018, 09:14:28 PM
I'm not sure about the fighter deployment penalty.  Deploying fighters on the move was basically the primary purpose of Helmsmanship 3 (with a secondary benefit of being able to keep the speed bonus during low-ish intensity firing or shields on-the-move until being fired upon).  I've found AI likes to engage their fighters all the time so I've found officers with Helmsmanship 3 to basically be necessary for not just pure carriers, but combat warships with token fighter complements (In Vanilla, this would be DDs, CLs/CAs, & BBs with Converted Hangars, or the Odyssey.  Some ships in mods also have 1 or 2 fighter bays without carrier being their primary role).

It's necessary because ships with fighters seem to put their fighter craft on engage all the time unless their wings get completely wiped, even if nobody is within range, which cripples the speed they'd otherwise have.  That's lost me several kills and even a few AI ships until the lesson finally made it through my thick skull.

At >5% flux activation for engaging fighters, I think I'll switch out my actual fighters on "token fighter" vessels with cheap 0-engagement range drones like the Mining Pod Drone to avoid the "permanently engaged" issue.  If that still doesn't work for some reason I think I'll just strip out the fighters completely from non-battlecarriers/carriers.  The combat vessels really need that speed boost for chases and I really don't trust my ally AI to do it smartly.
Title: Re: Carrier balance stuff
Post by: Histidine on September 09, 2018, 09:22:37 PM
@Retry: Permanent engage is a bug, fixed in 0.9 (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=13165.0l)
Title: Re: Carrier balance stuff
Post by: TaLaR on September 09, 2018, 09:46:01 PM
On topic of defensive fighters, big problem with them (and most other fighters on regroup) is their bad positioning around the carrier:
- Typical defensive fail: My Heron is dodging dual Squall stream, where are the Xyphos? Why, of course they are catching all these squalls that missed my ship with their hulls.
- Typical offensive fail: enemy ship/fighters/missiles are approaching my ship from front, where should be my Xyphos? Correct answer: right below outer border of my shield radius or above forward part of my hull, to maximize intercept range while being protected by the carrier. Where they actually are: hiding behind my ship and firing burst lasers at flares or missiles that have already missed the ship.
- Also, Talons/Broadswords etc like to line up for suicide in front of carrier. Unless I'm actually overloaded or close to that, it's completely unnecessary. Pity I can't force dock them, or force them to hide behind the carrier.

The only fighters that work well from regroup are Longbows and to a lesser extent (due to shorter range) Daggers/Tridents - they hide behind the ship and fire their missiles. Would be nice if they went to shield border before firing against far-away targets, but usable as is.
Title: Re: Carrier balance stuff
Post by: Midnight Kitsune on September 09, 2018, 09:59:22 PM
From the current (as yet unpublished) batch of patch notes:

Ordering fighters to engage builds flux up to slightly above 5%
Unstable Injector: now also increases fighter replacement time by 25%
I'm quite disappointed that Helmsmanship 3 is getting nerfed hard, especially, since IIRC, it was buffed to allow carriers to engage their fighters and still keep the buff
Speaking of which, does the flux cost scale off of the base flux stats? Improved flux stats? I've always been kinda confused on shield upkeep and now fighters taking percentages of your cap.

And it also presents a problem:
If it does not scale, then a few vents or caps should make it not matter
If it does scale, then it is just arbitrary and very gamey. It seems like a quick and, to be brutally honest, a lazy and half assed fix.
You yourself have said you don't want to do any skill rebalances this patch and yet, here we are doing something that is essentially just that. Please, just either leave the carrier/ Helmsmanship 3 issue alone until the next skill rebalance or just do it now as to NOT resort to these half assed patch jobs

(Also, please take everything I say with a grain of salt, I'm sleep deprived and stressing over RL things right now...)
Title: Re: Carrier balance stuff
Post by: Alex on September 09, 2018, 10:25:00 PM
since IIRC, it was buffed to allow carriers to engage their fighters and still keep the buff

That's not correct, 1% was enough for that. It being this good for carriers was always unintended.

Speaking of which, does the flux cost scale off of the base flux stats? Improved flux stats? I've always been kinda confused on shield upkeep and now fighters taking percentages of your cap.

And it also presents a problem:
If it does not scale, then a few vents or caps should make it not matter

Yep, it scales, since - as you say - it would be pointless otherwise.

I guess we could just say it takes *that* much for comms to punch through jamming or w/e.


(Also, please take everything I say with a grain of salt, I'm sleep deprived and stressing over RL things right now...)

Good luck with stuff! Hope whatever it is pans out in a good way.


On topic of defensive fighters, big problem with them (and most other fighters on regroup) is their bad positioning around the carrier:
- Typical defensive fail: My Heron is dodging dual Squall stream, where are the Xyphos? Why, of course they are catching all these squalls that missed my ship with their hulls.
- Typical offensive fail: enemy ship/fighters/missiles are approaching my ship from front, where should be my Xyphos? Correct answer: right below outer border of my shield radius or above forward part of my hull, to maximize intercept range while being protected by the carrier. Where they actually are: hiding behind my ship and firing burst lasers at flares or missiles that have already missed the ship.
- Also, Talons/Broadswords etc like to line up for suicide in front of carrier. Unless I'm actually overloaded or close to that, it's completely unnecessary. Pity I can't force dock them, or force them to hide behind the carrier.

The only fighters that work well from regroup are Longbows and to a lesser extent (due to shorter range) Daggers/Tridents - they hide behind the ship and fire their missiles. Would be nice if they went to shield border before firing against far-away targets, but usable as is.

Thank you! I'll keep these in mind. That said, fighter behavior improvements would probably come coupled with fighter nerfs - since fighters aren't controlled directly, their behavior is an inherent part of their actual effectiveness. From that perspective, imo, it makes the most sense to make behavior improvements that lead to improved gameplay, rather than just to improved fighter performance.
Title: Re: Carrier balance stuff
Post by: Linnis on September 09, 2018, 11:51:00 PM
Thank you! I'll keep these in mind. That said, fighter behavior improvements would probably come coupled with fighter nerfs - since fighters aren't controlled directly, their behavior is an inherent part of their actual effectiveness. From that perspective, imo, it makes the most sense to make behavior improvements that lead to improved gameplay, rather than just to improved fighter performance.

Thats what I was thinking while reading this thread. Its like having the AI pilot the hammerhead, either it will rip the enemy apart or act stupid and die without doing any damage.

Though astrals with those dual large anti-shield missiles are huge huge huge pain in the ass to fight.
Title: Re: Carrier balance stuff
Post by: TaLaR on September 10, 2018, 12:12:21 AM
Thank you! I'll keep these in mind. That said, fighter behavior improvements would probably come coupled with fighter nerfs - since fighters aren't controlled directly, their behavior is an inherent part of their actual effectiveness. From that perspective, imo, it makes the most sense to make behavior improvements that lead to improved gameplay, rather than just to improved fighter performance.

I'm okay with fighters having their strengths and weakness, but it would be nice if those made sense rather than coming from arbitrarily ineffective behavior.

Plus, they can be controlled somewhat more directly - by using allies and far-away enemies as waypoints. It's only 1v1 where I'm stuck able to do nothing except engage/regroup.
Still, carriers having way less control over their functions compared to normal ships is gritting. I mean, did you know that manually fired Storm Needler is quite decent supplementary PD against Squalls? Can't do stuff like this with fighters :( .

Though astrals with those dual large anti-shield missiles are huge huge huge pain in the ass to fight.

Yeah, Squalls are powerful. Anything less than 2 dual flaks firing at them is waste of flux - they'll get through anyway, and stopping them reliably takes even more. Any self-respecting Astral variant should include them - no 40 OP worth alternative will buy it more reliable survival.

At the same time, Just not getting hit with Squalls is easy - just move sideways at about 80-90 speed. Anything short of slower non-UI capitals can move that fast with flux boost - disable PD and shield while dodging. But it costs time, and obviously gets more problematic if synced with other attacks (fighters or long range weapons in case of Conquest).

As with Sabots, Squalls can be quite effectively used offensively too. But AI is not great at doing so.
Title: Re: Carrier balance stuff
Post by: Goumindong on September 10, 2018, 02:38:21 AM
Helmsmanship is really really good on the conquest and odyssey, not just carriers
Title: Re: Carrier balance stuff
Post by: TaLaR on September 10, 2018, 03:07:49 AM
Helmsmanship is really really good on the conquest and odyssey, not just carriers

What for (I mean beside Odyssey being a carrier)? Neither of them has a meaningful build using soft flux below dissipation and would immediately go above 5% on opening fire.
Graviton + Tacs Wolf is good example of making decent use of Helmsmanship 3, but not these 2. Then again, why would you specialize an Officer in a not particularly powerful frigate build.
Soft flux Aurora with Helmsmanship 3 can also be quite annoying in it's own way, even if powerless for a cruiser.

If it's just to prevent getting slowed down when PD decides to shoot something unimportant, you could toggle hold fire to avoid that. Same with keeping shield raised when it's actually unnecessary.
Title: Re: Carrier balance stuff
Post by: Megas on September 10, 2018, 05:43:01 AM
Helmsmanship 3 being great to the point of must-have on any ship with fighters is the only reason I take it.  With that gone, I might take Helmsmanship up to 2 for more top speed (to catch those cowards).

Until I learned that fighters put hard flux on shield (had no idea when I first played 0.8 ), I thought Helmsmanship 3 was useless, until I learned fighters put flux on carriers, then I realized Helms 3 was mandatory to reclaim mobility.

I probably would rather have the original Helmsmanship 5 perk back of zero-flux speed bonus of +75 as the new level 3 perk than this.  Helmsmanship 3 becoming useful only for beam frigates or pure missileboats is useless (except for early game fights against unshielded pirates for beam boats).

Re: Squalls
You need four dual flak to stop Squalls reliably.  This is how much my Legion needs to defend against Squall spam.  Two does not cut it, three can stop some, but four or more is ideal.  Devastator can help if not enough flak can be mounted.

As for Astral, the only weapons I mount on it are a few burst PD.  Fighters and hullmods eat nearly all of its OP.  (Reasoning is fighters are infinite missiles, especially when combined with Recall Device.)  If piloted by AI, it hides behind other ships.  If I pilot it, I either kite with it or approach and abuse Recall Device for overwhelming alpha strike.  High end fighters cost so much OP that the Astral is very OP hungry.
Title: Re: Carrier balance stuff
Post by: Thaago on September 10, 2018, 10:25:47 AM
Helmsmanship 3 is a game changing perk for any ship. Moving with shields up or PD firing is a massive movement buff - especially given how the AI plays defensively with its shield around HE missiles such as rockets and LRM's. In addition, you can design ships that do not exceed 5% flux when firing their longest range band of guns. This is very useful for example with destroyers, allowing them to chase frigates while maintaining a +50 speed boost. It is also amazing for the Dominator and Onslaught, as it allows them to keep the +50 speed boost while burn driving (not sure whether maneuvering jets and other systems also put flux on like Burn Drive does).
Title: Re: Carrier balance stuff
Post by: Goumindong on September 10, 2018, 01:37:18 PM
Helmsmanship is really really good on the conquest and odyssey, not just carriers

What for (I mean beside Odyssey being a carrier)? Neither of them has a meaningful build using soft flux below dissipation and would immediately go above 5% on opening fire.
Graviton + Tacs Wolf is good example of making decent use of Helmsmanship 3, but not these 2. Then again, why would you specialize an Officer in a not particularly powerful frigate build.
Soft flux Aurora with Helmsmanship 3 can also be quite annoying in it's own way, even if powerless for a cruiser.

If it's just to prevent getting slowed down when PD decides to shoot something unimportant, you could toggle hold fire to avoid that. Same with keeping shield raised when it's actually unnecessary.

The odyssey and the conquest can both fire broadsides without going above 5% so long as they’re not taking incoming fire.

Considering that this gives them destroyer speed or better (forward speed is faster and more maneuverable than backwards/side to side speed) it lets them safely and powerfully engage around the periphery and clean the enemy force up.
Title: Re: Carrier balance stuff
Post by: TaLaR on September 10, 2018, 01:55:11 PM
The odyssey and the conquest can both fire broadsides without going above 5% so long as they’re not taking incoming fire.

Considering that this gives them destroyer speed or better (forward speed is faster and more maneuverable than backwards/side to side speed) it lets them safely and powerfully engage around the periphery and clean the enemy force up.

But it's not about average flux usage - it's about not having 5% even for split second. Since weapons consume flux in bursts, most of them fail to maintain strict below 5%.
...Though I guess, it's possible to pick some weapons which do work for Conquest, like Storm Needlers. Or raise caps just to go below magic 5% peak, if you are otherwise close to it. Not sure if it's worth doing though, since it means sacrificing stuff like Gauss Cannons (too much flux per shot no matter what you do).
Title: Re: Carrier balance stuff
Post by: Thaago on September 10, 2018, 02:09:03 PM
You can also just turn off the side with Gauss cannons and close with the more flux efficient brawling side.
Title: Re: Carrier balance stuff
Post by: Megas on September 10, 2018, 02:36:01 PM
You can also just turn off the side with Gauss cannons and close with the more flux efficient brawling side.
That may not be a given either.

Not sure if it's worth doing though, since it means sacrificing stuff like Gauss Cannons (too much flux per shot no matter what you do).
I would need to sacrifice the other side with two Mjolnirs too.  Or possibly Ion Beam plus any other ballistics since Ion Beam is a bit of a hog.

Of course, if I want to brawl with both sides at once, there is no way I can keep flux under 5%.  Too many guns firing.

One side will be Gauss and Mauler for anti-Paragon.  The other side varies by whatever I can get my hands on, but my favorite is two Mjolnir and two dual flak, and those are as much of a flux hog as the Gauss side.  If I cannot get Mjolnirs, I use less powerful ballistics, but might add Ion Beam for shield piercing.
Title: Re: Carrier balance stuff
Post by: Goumindong on September 10, 2018, 02:43:49 PM
The odyssey and the conquest can both fire broadsides without going above 5% so long as they’re not taking incoming fire.

Considering that this gives them destroyer speed or better (forward speed is faster and more maneuverable than backwards/side to side speed) it lets them safely and powerfully engage around the periphery and clean the enemy force up.

But it's not about average flux usage - it's about not having 5% even for split second. Since weapons consume flux in bursts, most of them fail to maintain strict below 5%.
...Though I guess, it's possible to pick some weapons which do work for Conquest, like Storm Needlers. Or raise caps just to go below magic 5% peak, if you are otherwise close to it. Not sure if it's worth doing though, since it means sacrificing stuff like Gauss Cannons (too much flux per shot no matter what you do).

Conquest can fire 2 gauss consistently without going over 5%. It costs 2400 flux and 1200 of that is burned away as you fire. Putting you at 6% of cap assuming no skills or increased flux capacity/vents... which well... you should have

Edit: like, if you fire sequentially it’s possible to keep under 5% cap with zero skills or extra vents. It’s totally easy with them.

Though to be fair my ideal conquest is

Side 1: Gauss and whatever single flack or dual flack work but are not necessary
Missiles: 2x MIRV + 2 x Harpoon Pod
Side 2: devastator cannons and flack.

Mjolnir works as a decent sub if you can’t get gauss.

Edit2: the gauss in sequence flux lock and then The MIRVs and harpoons kill them. If you’re re against a fighter heavy force or about to suffer a bombing run you pop the maneuvering jets and swap sides.
Title: Re: Carrier balance stuff
Post by: Megas on September 10, 2018, 02:53:04 PM
Gauss is fairly common thanks to pirate Mudskippers.
Title: Re: Carrier balance stuff
Post by: Deshara on September 10, 2018, 10:31:02 PM
what if, instead of hangers disabling all speed boosting mods, having hangers makes any speed-boosting mods apply their boosts to the fighters instead